People ask me when I'm going to update it. And that makes me both boggle and feel spiffy.

And then you're like "maybe I should reread it and maybe it IS worth writing more..." and then you start rereading and you just NOPE the fuck out of there because jesus what the hell was that shit just no.

In the Bechdel Test, there must be no conversation between women and about a man, or does at least one have to meet the requirement? I've seen both interpretations.

There's not really much to interpret.

They can talk about a man, but there has to be at least one conversation between two named female characters which doesn't revolve around a man. So no talking about how the main male character is getting on your nerves, or how male character is the rootingest tootingest new sheriff in town. Just saying, "Hi, how are you today?" "I'm fine thanks." would be a pass if the characters are named. It's so sad how many movies don't pass. It doesn't mean a movie can't be a really good movie, and it doesn't mean that it can't actually be a movie with bad-ass ladies in it.(not strong female characters, that's a different thing http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311 )

The Bechedel test is just something which asks for a very basic representation of women in the movies.

Edit: It turns out I forgot to post this aages back! But yeah in reference to the current conversation:

ANYTHING BY PRATCHETT. Seriously. He doesn't write "female characters" he just writes "people who are sometimes female and sometimes male".

Yes, and the confusion of lube with cake batter is an unfortunate side effect that I think is worth it.

heretical rants wrote:

wut

There is a livejournal community called Weepingcock dedicated to orrific and amusing misunderstandings found in slash fic. One ofthe most memorable ones had two characters using cake batter as lube._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

People ask me when I'm going to update it. And that makes me both boggle and feel spiffy.

And then you're like "maybe I should reread it and maybe it IS worth writing more..." and then you start rereading and you just NOPE the fuck out of there because jesus what the hell was that shit just no.

Not that I'm talking from experience.

...

Shut up.

I've reread it, and it is as cringeworthy was I expect. But it's extra silly because I said the story was completed (As my great teenage masterpiece.) and also it has been like 10 years since it was written. (Not double checking on the dates, you can't make me go anywhere near it again.)

It might be interesting to rewrite it with all of my knowledges I have gaied. But the show has been involved with some horrible painful appenings I don't want to discuss, so I don't kow I'll ever do that._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

This thread has got me wondering if anyone has ever written a story in which people are all named "Taylor" / "Ashley" / "Alex" / "Robin" / "Charlie" / etc. and genders are never actually brought into the story.

This thread has got me wondering if anyone has ever written a story in which people are all named "Taylor" / "Ashley" / "Alex" / "Robin" / "Charlie" / etc. and genders are never actually brought into the story.

ursula leguin wrote a book called, i think, "winter's king", about a society in which people normally were genderless, only taking on sexual attributes when they came into "heat". the gender you became was somewhat arbitrary, although it could be influenced by the gender of other people around you, and it could change from time to time - so one member of a married couple with children could have fathered some of the children, and given birth to the others.

can't remember when she wrote it, but at the time she wrote it she used the male gender in referring to non-gendered people. later, she wrote a short story set in that same world for one of harlan ellison's "dangerous visions" anthologies, and i think used 'she' - i do remember she suggested reading it both ways, with male or female as the 'default' gender. you did get rather a different feel from the story. probably would have been different yet if she had used some sort of genderless words - s/he and him/hers.

that might be an interesting exercise for writers - try reversing the genders of all your characters, and see if one sex is now coming across as cardboard, or lacking in character development._________________aka: neverscared!

I recall the Stone Prince being fairly gender-neutral. If I remember correctly, there was a gender dichotomy there, and people did have ideas about those who fell into either male or female category - but other than that the characters as written could have been of any gender. It has been awhile, so my assessment may have been off._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

sorry, "winter's king" must have been the story, the novel was "left hand of darkness". which i should really read again.

i love her work - her father was an anthropologist, and she brings an anthropologist's sensibility to her writing - she creates societies that have internal consistency, which gives you even more to think about in comparison with our own. so it's not just a culture where people are genderless most of the time, but otherwise exactly like our own - she's thought through all the implications that that difference has, and lets them structure the culture.

{edit} - "winter's king" is in "the wind's twelve quarters" - she says:

Quote:

The story takes place on Gethen, the same planet shown in more detail The Left Hand of Darkness. It was in fact Le Guin's first vision of that place:

"When I wrote this story, a year before I began the novel The Left Hand of Darkness, I did not know that the inhabitants of the planet Winter of Gethen were androgynes. By the time the story came out in print, I did, but too late to amend such usages as 'son', 'mother', and so on..."

"In revising the story for this edition... I use the feminine pronoun for all Gethenians - while preserving certain masculine titles such as King and Lord, just to remind one of the ambiguity... The androgyny of the characters has little to do with the events of the story."[2]

so i guess the "dangerous visions" version is the one with males as the default gender, and then this with females.

dang, now i want to go reread all those books...._________________aka: neverscared!